With everyone so up in arms(sorry for the pun) about things like government spying on its citizens and firearms in recent years why hasn't anyone pushed for a constitutional amendment to address these issues?

Of course there is the 4th and the 2nd that already talk about these things but it seems a lot of people disagree on what they really mean.

Would a amendment that makes a clarification on another somehow weaken the original?

With everyone so up in arms(sorry for the pun) about thinks like government spying on its citizens and firearms in recent years why hasn't anyone pushed for a constitutional amendment to address these issues?

Of course there is the 4th and the 2nd that already talk about these things but it seems a lot of people disagree on what they really mean.

Would a amendment that makes a clarification on another somehow weaken the original?

Click to expand...

A constitutional amendment isn't exactly something that just happens. Heck, one of my own favorite causes has been pushing for an amendment for their own reason, but even with a few states agreeing I doubt it will actually happen.

With everyone so up in arms(sorry for the pun) about things like government spying on its citizens and firearms in recent years why hasn't anyone pushed for a constitutional amendment to address these issues?

Of course there is the 4th and the 2nd that already talk about these things but it seems a lot of people disagree on what they really mean.

Would a amendment that makes a clarification on another somehow weaken the original?

Click to expand...

I honestly don't think the country could survive an amendment process in it's current state. Too much FUD has the public as a whole twisted in knots and the anger over the direction the country has been on (for decades) is definitely near a boiling point.

I'd like a simple, plain language amendment making it clear that 21st century technology does not overrule the right to be secure in your activities in the digital realm, but I truly don't think the country can take it.

Yeah, I look back on 20th century amendments and marvel at the level of agreement necessary to pass them. Amendments are presented as a fix-all by any number of groups, a kind of high ground. A way to overpower competing groups.

As a practical matter, modern amendments are 1) about issues that have long term disagreement but also 2) have short term wide spread agreement. Amendments are basically super legislation, and usually occur after the majority have made up their minds on a given issue. Ie, nothing like the current political climate.

We are too polarized for a Constitutional amendment to pass. Everything is politicized and most have chosen their side. Name me one thing that could pass the House and Senate with a ⅔ majority and then pass ¾ of the state legislatures. You might be able to get ⅔ of state legislatures to propose a Constitutional convention but nothing woud ever pass ¾ of the legislatures.

We are too polarized for a Constitutional amendment to pass. Everything is politicized and most have chosen their side. Name me one thing that could pass the House and Senate with a ⅔ majority and then pass ¾ of the state legislatures. You might be able to get ⅔ of state legislatures to propose a Constitutional convention but nothing woud ever pass ¾ of the legislatures.

Click to expand...

Exactly.

The majority of Americans (GOPers included) support raising the minimum wage, regardless of the discussion of economic impacts, in a democracy this should pass but we see absolutely nothing but contempt for the idea in the upper echelons of power.

I think you all summed it up quite nicely. Getting an amendment passed takes a hefty amount of mutual agreements and cooperation to take place across the entire system before it can happen. Considering our current government can't even pass a budget without resorting to demagoguery and brinksmanship...

I think you all summed it up quite nicely. Getting an amendment passed takes a hefty amount of mutual agreements and cooperation to take place across the entire system before it can happen. Considering our current government can't even pass a budget without resorting to demagoguery and brinksmanship...

...yeah, we're not gonna see that happen anytime soon.

Click to expand...

Even if we did get some sort of agreement, it would all be sunk the second one individual attached a rider regarding abortion or gay marriage (knowing damn well it has nothing to do with the discussion at hand, a tactic well known as the "poison pill") and the cycle of division would begin again.

We are too polarized for a Constitutional amendment to pass. Everything is politicized and most have chosen their side. Name me one thing that could pass the House and Senate with a ⅔ majority and then pass ¾ of the state legislatures. You might be able to get ⅔ of state legislatures to propose a Constitutional convention but nothing woud ever pass ¾ of the legislatures.

Click to expand...

I think you are right, and, while kids not being humiliated might not be "important" enough to merit consideration......maybe an amendment to stop this sort of nonsense (especially while the state is spending millions to fight sam sex marriage) might pass.

What you are pointing out is something that can be addressed by local legislation. It would be inappropriate for a constitutional amendment and would be a waste of effort.

Heck, it could just be tacked on to additional legislation and existing regulation. You dont pass constitutional amendments for things of that nature when a smaller and easier to pass law would suffice.

The 2nd Amendment will have to be reworked someday. Unless we bring back slavery, we just don't need an amendment intended to protect the right to keep and bear arms to suppress slave revolts. (Oops!) In any case, it is unlikely that I will live to see this.

What we actually need, and might actually get in my lifetime, is an amendment declaring that corporations are not legal persons.

I would love a Constitutional Amendment for term limits on national legislators (Congress & Senators), just like the Presidential Administration limits.

Maybe just one to limit the corruption of lobby groups. So one to limit the gravy train that corrupts legislators, like a ban, except (for) non-profit organizations and private citizen from that district.

I would love a Constitutional Amendment for term limits on national legislators(Congress & Senators), just like the Presidential Administration limits.

Maybe just one to limit the coruption of lobby groups. So one to limit the gravy train that corrupts legislators like a ban except no-profit organizations and private citizen from that district.

Click to expand...

If you put in term limits then that just guarantees that legislators will do things in exchange for jobs once they are termed out. California tried term limits for the state legislature, and it hasn't improved anything other than getting the people who have been there long enough to be effective out.

Regarding Representatives... I actually think their terms should be extended to four years, with alternating elections every two years [like the Senate]. Why? Because modern elections basically demand a year and a half of campaigning, so that's what these people end up doing for almost their whole term.

I also believe there should be a rule added whereby the distance between two sides of a district must be above a certain length. So basically you can't draw narrow lines connecting distant areas:.

Yeah, I look back on 20th century amendments and marvel at the level of agreement necessary to pass them.

Click to expand...

Watching a documentary on WWI (now 100 years old), the war and the movements around it were interconnected. Women wanted the right to vote since before it started. And it was during the war that something happened. The government (UK in this case) needed huge amounts of new labor. So the head of both movements (war and womens rights) struck a bargain. Women went to work, powering the industry that powered the war and in return, garnered what else they were after - the vote.

What made the changes of that period possible then, was not large scale agreement. But the very turmoil of the period. What makes change less possible now, is all the prolonged stability. Like some kind of huge molecules, there simply isnt enough heat to allow movement/flow. Everything is frozen solid.

I think you all summed it up quite nicely. Getting an amendment passed takes a hefty amount of mutual agreements and cooperation to take place across the entire system before it can happen. Considering our current government can't even pass a budget without resorting to demagoguery and brinksmanship...

...yeah, we're not gonna see that happen anytime soon.

Click to expand...

It's not just mutual agreement but first the will to do so.

Here are a couple of organizations that are trying to get an amendment to get money out of politics:

Watching a documentary on WWI (now 100 years old), the war and the movements around it were interconnected. Women wanted the right to vote since before it started. And it was during the war that something happened. The government (UK in this case) needed huge amounts of new labor. So the head of both movements (war and womens rights) struck a bargain. Women went to work, powering the industry that powered the war and in return, garnered what else they were after - the vote.

What made the changes of that period possible then, was not large scale agreement. But the very turmoil of the period. What makes change less possible now, is all the prolonged stability. Like some kind of huge molecules, there simply isnt enough heat to allow movement/flow. Everything is frozen solid.

Click to expand...

While I do think you make some very interesting points I do believe that you did overlook one important point, before the 1980s people used to think of themselves as a part of society.

Look at the civil rights movement and the numbers of Freedom Riders, groups like the Amnesty International, Greenpeace, Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières, were formed to name but a few, to make the world a better place.

But since the Reagan Thatcher Free Market everybody for themselves philosophy, there is very little interest to do anything that does not turn a profit or directly impact oneself.

With the idea of everybody for themselves, there is no room for people to work together because nobody must profit from my dime/time, with such an attitude, everything stagnates.

MacRumors attracts a broad audience
of both consumers and professionals interested in
the latest technologies and products. We also boast an active community focused on
purchasing decisions and technical aspects of the iPhone, iPod, iPad, and Mac platforms.